Jump to content


Photo

Mathematics


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#41 blue_*

blue_*

    Theta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 06:35 AM

Where on earth is all this going?....

#42 DJP

DJP

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 07:42 AM

I don't think it's going anywhere near earth in a hurry.

DJP

#43 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:08 AM

I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?

Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.

#44 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:08 AM

Where on earth is all this going?....

I have tried asking that before.

#45 medazelim_*

medazelim_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:19 AM

I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?

Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.

Oh yeah well this proves 1=2

Let a = b
Thus,
a2 = ab
a2 + a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab

Rewrite this as:
2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)
Dividing both sides by a2 - ab, we thus have:
2 = 1

#46 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:27 AM

What if you lived in a total fluid based society? If you have two water droplets that combine how much do you have? One water droplet. Therefore 2 can equal 1.

#47 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:28 AM

Isn't there a reason division by zero is illegal?
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#48 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:19 AM

Erm, this thread is ... interesting, but what I'm wondering is ... what on earth is the purpose of this discussion? :tarkus:

Just people showing off how clever they are.

#49 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:26 AM

I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?

Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.

Oh yeah well this proves 1=2

Let a = b
Thus,
a2 = ab
a2 + a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab

Rewrite this as:
2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)
Dividing both sides by a2 - ab, we thus have:
2 = 1

That doesn't change my statement.

#50 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:27 AM

Erm, this thread is ... interesting, but what I'm wondering is ... what on earth is the purpose of this discussion?  :tarkus:

Just people showing off how clever they are.

Careful, someone objected vigorously when I said that. :SarahS:

#51 DJP

DJP

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 03:57 PM

I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?

Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.

Mmm.... I thought you might. It was a trick question. Nevertheless, "Z2" is a perfectly good field, and obeys all the field axioms. In fact, because the integers do not obey the field axioms, one might say that Z2 is a better mathematical system than the integers.

medazelim, you can't divide by a2 - ab if 2 = 0, because you've divided by zero. (Assuming your first line was meant to be "let b = 2.")

DJP

#52 DJP

DJP

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:08 PM

Adanac & Fort, the philosophy of mathematics is an interesting subject. I happen to think that it has theological relevance and I think Skeptic agrees. The implied question is "what is the place of mathematics in the creation?" — see Skeptic's long post to me that I haven't responded to yet.

If you don't like maths, or aren't interested in its philosophy, please ignore the thread. There seem to be enough people here who do understand it and are interested by it to warrant having it.

If you have a strong objection to the thread (maybe it's against the board rules because it could be considered to contain non-Biblical arguments about creation) then please make your objection plain without insulting anyone.

DJP

#53 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:12 PM

I find mathematics supremely fascinating and enjoy showing off how clever I am with the rest of you. :shrug: I'm just not as clever as you guys so can't show off as much, but 10 out of 10 for effort.

#54 medazelim_*

medazelim_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:34 PM

Oh yeah well this proves 1=2

Let a = b
Thus,
a2 = ab
a2 + a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab

Rewrite this as:
2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)
Dividing both sides by a2 - ab, we thus have:
2 = 1

No it doesnt, because a2 - ab = 0 and as Flappie rightly states, you cannot divide by 0.

Oh, yeah I knew that. err I was just testing

#55 medazelim_*

medazelim_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:36 PM

In other words, unlike logical axioms, non-logical axioms are not valid in all contexts. Clearly, something that is not true "in any possible universe, under any possible interpretation and with any assignment of values" cannot be claimed to be objectively "true".



But if we take into consideration the context and carry it with us to different universes then the non-logical axiom will remain true. The parallel postulate might be proven false if we take into consideration the vast distances of the universe. The results would vary again if went to a donut shaped universe. But The parallel postulate can be proven true as long as its on a 2D plane and it will remain universal truth provided we are dealing with flat surfaces.
Right??

Edited by medazelim, 21 June 2005 - 04:38 PM.


#56 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:20 PM

What if you lived in a total fluid based society? If you have two water droplets that combine how much do you have? One water droplet. Therefore 2 can equal 1.

But this means you don't have two water droplets any more, you have one. Adanac, that sounded dreadfully like the poor analogies used to in attempts to support the trinity. :eek:

#57 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:21 PM

I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?

Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.

Mmm.... I thought you might. It was a trick question. Nevertheless, "Z2" is a perfectly good field, and obeys all the field axioms. In fact, because the integers do not obey the field axioms, one might say that Z2 is a better mathematical system than the integers.

That doesn't change the truth of what I said.

#58 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:24 PM

Adanac & Fort, the philosophy of mathematics is an interesting subject.

Yes, it's grossly interesting. I'm sure we all agree with that. :tarkus:

It's especially interesting when we can discuss it in public.

I happen to think that it has theological relevance and I think Skeptic agrees.


I haven't seen this discussion go anywhere near that direction.

The implied question is "what is the place of mathematics in the creation?" — see Skeptic's long post to me that I haven't responded to yet.


I haven't seen that question implied even remotely.

If you don't like maths, or aren't interested in its philosophy, please ignore the thread.  There seem to be enough people here who do understand it and are interested by it to warrant having it.


Well I was being asked certain questions.

If you have a strong objection to the thread (maybe it's against the board rules because it could be considered to contain non-Biblical arguments about creation)...


Please don't assume motives and issue these kinds of provocative statements. They will only end up deleted.

#59 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:24 PM

I find mathematics supremely fascinating and enjoy showing off how clever I am with the rest of you. :shrug: I'm just not as clever as you guys so can't show off as much, but 10 out of 10 for effort.

I believe you've put your finger on the issue. :colter:

#60 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:47 PM

What if you lived in a total fluid based society? If you have two water droplets that combine how much do you have? One water droplet. Therefore 2 can equal 1.

But this means you don't have two water droplets any more, you have one. Adanac, that sounded dreadfully like the poor analogies used to in attempts to support the trinity. :eek:

I quite agree.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users